Consequences of a quick US civil war.

[Mikestone8]

No long war means no draft. Could that make it a harder sell in 1917?

That's butterflies permitting of course. With no ACW in progress, Maximilian probably never becomes Emperor of Mexico. So if still alive he and not FF is heir-presumptive. Could change a lot.

Alternatively, might he become King of somewhere else? Maybe Spain in 1870? That could mean even more butterflies.

 

[Lalli]

No long war means no draft. Could that make it a harder sell in 1917?

That's butterflies permitting of course. With no ACW in progress, Maximilian probably never becomes Emperor of Mexico. So if still alive he and not FF is heir-presumptive. Could change a lot.

Alternatively, might he become King of somewhere else? Maybe Spain in 1870? That could mean even more butterflies.

And if Maximilian is more succesful in Spain than Savoy candidate was, this might has some intresting effects to alternate Great War.

 

[Mikestone8]

And if Maximilian is more succesful in Spain than Savoy candidate was, this might has some intresting effects to alternate Great War.

Especially if Maximilian[1] and Carlota remain childless.

If they are still w/o an heir in the early 1900s, they might provide a solution to the problem of FF's marriage. He might renounce the Austrian throne in return for being made heir to the Spanish one. I doubt if the Spanish would be as fussed as Franz Josef about Sophie's antecedents.

[1] If he still calls himself that. His full name, of course, was Ferdinand Maximilian. As King of Spain he might prefer to reign as Ferdinand VIII

 

[mrmandias]

Atlanta built its first skyscraper in 1892. In 1930 a 22 story building was built in Richmond. How tall is tall?

My reasoning is that with major slave states remaining in the Union and without a protracted war resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation, after the war the South will be able to bargain for a gradual emancipation of slaves with compensation for slave owners and colonization of freed slaves. Because the war was less destructive the South isn't as far behind the North to begin with. Former slave owners invest the money they get from their slaves in industrializing the South. If roughly half of freedmen go back to Africa, African Americans will make up 7%/(86% + 7%) ~= 7.5% of the American population.

Half of the freedmen being expatriated is way, way too high. Something like one percentage point worth or even half a percentage point worth (1/14th or 1/28th of the freedmen pop.) would require unprecedented levels of expenditure and coordination and would be just barely plausible.

 

[Jape]

I don't think there would be a 'Great Betrayal' narrative to the Upper/Lower South divide, and probably no "Good Old Cause" either, as this war will totally lack the apocalyptic overtones (death of antebellum slaver society/reconstruction/emancipation). Have the Confeds totally bugger up their PR to the Upper South, attack Federal property/agents as Washington asks for calm and discussion etc. General Lee leads the Union army to a fairly easy campaign, by the end of 1862 the war is over, with several states voluntarily surrendering in advance.

Ironically in a smaller war you might have the ringleaders treated more harshly, the likes of Davis tried for their treason.

You may still end up with Butler-esque contraband of war slave liberations on a small scale. I imagine post-war a Golden Womb law will be passed, making all slaves born after a certain date automatically free.

Liberia will certainly be brought up but it was mentioned fairly frequently in OTL and due to distance, cost, the reality of the 'free republic' and well the lack of connection African-Americans have to the place I doubt anything would come of it.

If we're looking at a small group of freemen post-war with a continuing slave population, the Indian Territories may be of interest. Lincoln did mention confiscating land from secessionist tribes IOTL for freemen. Not dead and without the vastness of Reconstruction to deal with, Lincoln and Congress might find a place for free blacks in *Oklahoma. Perhaps in time as the free black population increases elsewhere the Territory slowly evolves into a 'Black State'. I very much doubt the majortiy of African-Americans would end up there but it seems a plan a turn-of-the-century Progressive Republican regime might push for.

May Mexico be used as a means to unite the American public post small ACW?

 

[GTStinger]

Without the Upper South, many leaders may quickly get a "We might have bit off more than we can chew." feeling. The loudest fire eaters will continue to sound off, but there may be more pressure to accept a compromise agreement.
Could this be enough to avoid/delay a Fort Sumter conflict? Perhaps NC or VA verifies that resupply ships only carry boots, beans, and such.
If TX, FL, LA start showing interest in a compromise, maybe the war is limited to a blockade and short series of battles in SC.

 

[Mikestone8]

You may still end up with Butler-esque contraband of war slave liberations on a small scale. I imagine post-war a Golden Womb law will be passed, making all slaves born after a certain date automatically free.

If half of the Slave States have never seceded, could such an Amendment be ratified?

Indeed, if only the original seven Confederate States have seceded, that means only 33 Southern Representatives have withdrawn. That being so, could such a measure even get two-thirds in the House?

 

[sloreck]

Slavery was on the way out, and the reality was that the new states that were being admitted were going to be free. The House of Representatives was now heavily "northern" even with the 3/5 clause, and the Senate was going to be much more free than slave. With slavery continuing in the south, there will not be faster industrial development - in fact the needs of the war and then northern investment jump started industry in the south. In addition to the "anti-industry" mindset of southern society, capital was hugely invested in slaves and the cash for industrial investment was simply not there. With a short war, the plantation infrastructure will be more intact, and there is less incentive to change to a more industrial economy. In short order "King Cotton" will stop being king, as the British shift to using primarily cotton from India and Egypt under Imperial Preference. This will further degrade the power of the south to call the tune for the USA.

The standardization of railway gauges was accelerated and more or less completed by the war. In a short war you will see the northern, and perhaps some of the Upper South, rail gauges pretty much all standard. In the Lower South, and some of the Upper South you will still see a rail system with multiple gauges and also designed to bring farm products to ports, and not proper linkages.

As far as freed slaves going to Liberia - unless they are marched on the ships at gunpoint not happening in large numbers.

 

[Mikestone8]

Slavery was on the way out,

Really? Not a single state had abolished it since NJ in 1804, and there was no immediate prospect of any other doing so.

and the reality was that the new states that were being admitted were going to be free. The House of Representatives was now heavily "northern" even with the 3/5 clause, and the Senate was going to be much more free than slave.

That certainly threatens the expansion of slavery, but not necessarily its existence. After all, if the Blacks become "free persons" (even if it's only on paper) then all of them count for Congressional representation rather than only three-fifths as heretofore. Would the North want to strengthen the South's political clout in that way?

As far as freed slaves going to Liberia - unless they are marched on the ships at gunpoint not happening in large numbers.

Of course, assuming that abolition does not imply giving Blacks the vote, or the same civil rights as whites, brute force could indeed be used. I agree, though, that the numbers involved would make it prohibitively expensive.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Not a single state had abolished it since NJ in 1804, and there was no immediate prospect of any other doing so.

Seconded; I don't think Slavery was going to be abolished, and I think there would be an effort to transition slavery into industrial work. Even if that failed, and social pressure ended the trade of slave made products, I think slavery would persist as personal servants to the aristocracy in the Deep South.

 

[Johnrankins]

Slavery likely endures.

For a generation, no more IMO. Secession is something you can try only once. If you try it and get stomped you are going to find it difficult to get people go for a second shot. Most people aren't going to fight totally suicidal endeavors and that is what it would look like after getting stomped.

 

[Johnrankins]

If roughly half of freedmen go back to Africa, African Americans will make up 7%/(86% + 7%) ~= 7.5% of the American population.

This is not happening, it would cost way too much.

 

[Ntongo]

This is not happening, it would cost way too much.

Does anyone know of any cost estimates for Colonization? If much larger numbers of Europeans could afford to take a ship to America, why couldn't slaves earn a small salary as part of the process of manumission with some of it set aside for the fare to Africa (or Central America or Haiti)? Lincoln seems to have been exploring colonization during his presidency. Did no one run the numbers and explain that it was too expensive?

 

[Johnrankins]

Does anyone know of any cost estimates for Colonization? If much larger numbers of Europeans could afford to take a ship to America, why couldn't slaves earn a small salary as part of the process of manumission with some of it set aside for the fare to Africa (or Central America or Haiti)? Lincoln seems to have been exploring colonization during his presidency. Did no one run the numbers and explain that it was too expensive?

The Europeans actually wanted to get here and paid their own way, the slaves had no real desire to go to Africa . They would have had to have been rounded it up, put into a local camp, fed there , railed to a larger central camp stay there for quite a while and then sent to a huge camp and sent aboard a ship . They would have had to have been supplied with farm tools, seeds , and food for at least a year or so. The plan was to have them survive in Africa after all. If the plan was simply to kill them a quick bullet to the head would have been much cheaper.

 

[sloreck]

There are roughly 4,000,000 slaves in the USA in 1860, if you throw in the free blacks lets call it 4,250,000 African-Americans in the USA in 1860. Let's guess you can put 250 on an average passenger ship of the day in acceptable conditions - not like the slave ships that brought them. That means A LOT of trips from the US to Africa, and the cost of the round trip has to be paid for with cargo only going one way as there is not enough imports from Africa to be shipped back from Africa to the USA. This works out to 170,000 round trips. Even at 500/ship (truly brutal conditions) this is 85,000 trips. The cost of a third class trip to the USA in the 1880s and beyond on a steamship immigrant class was about $30. Assume the cost the same for an 1865 trip USA to Africa, it is a reasonable estimate. This means the shipping cost for these folks is $120,000,000. Now add the costs of getting these folks to ports of embarkation, housing and feeding them until they get aboard ship for a process that will take several years. Wow, now you are talking about real money. BTW just the shipping is $3,273,600,000 (roughly) in 2018 dollars. Don't forget the cost of the needs to settle in Africa (tools, seed, food, etc).

OK Skippy the ASB has dropped about 10 billion dollars (today's value) on you. OTL with the failure of reconstruction, Jim Crow etc, the number of African Americans who left the USA for anywhere after slavery ended, let alone those who went to Africa was basically a rounding error in the census. Exactly how are you going to get 4,250,000 people to do this voluntarily? You can't, not unless you have a military willing to do what the Germans did to the Jews.

 

[PuffyClouds]

@sloreck 17,000 not 170,000 round trips
Does that effect your dollar figure?

 

[GTStinger]

Still a lot cheaper to offer 40 acres and a mule in a western territory.

 

[Mikestone8]

Still a lot cheaper to offer 40 acres and a mule in a western territory.

Why offer anything?

Northerners objected to the expansion of slavery because they wanted to be able to go west w/o having to compete with slave labour. The welfare of the slaves was a relatively minor consideration.

 

[Skallagrim]

The idea remains preposterous, simply because it costs so much, even if we ignore the obvious moral implications. I'm quite willing to entertain the idea that a military willing to ssentially exterminate entire populations of Native Americans for no better reason than "whites want to settle here" would also be willing to push endless amounts of blacks onto those ships at bayonet point. When I can't make credible is that Congress - or indeed the public - would be willing to foot the bill. And I'm being very cynical here: you may safely assume bad conditions: think meagre rations, barracks for 'housing' in the transportation camps, and a near-total neglect of any and all post-arrival needs. We think those blacks will need tools and materials in Africa. People in the mid-to-late 19th century may just not even consider the issue. Out of sight, out of mind.

Even then, the bill would be huge. People won't want to pay for that. On the other hand, settling the black population out west - while cheaper - isn't going to happen either. Why? Same reason the natives didn't get to keep their land: whites wanted it. Sacrificing western settlement areas to help rid the South of 'their' blacks just isn't going to fly in other parts of the Union. This whole 'relocate the blacks' scheme was always a pipe-dream of chiefly Southern thinkers who had realised that if they didn't do something, they'd have to - gasp - live alongside black people as equals someday.

Frankly, the only way I see it happening is if the USA conquers Haiti. It's much closer (and thus cheaper to reach) than Africa, and it's not a party of the world that whites really want to own/settle. Of course, nearly nobody outside the South is going to advocate spending energy and money to conquer Haiti just to help the South dump all African-Americans over there. You'd have to devise a scenario where Haiti is conquered beforehand, for unrelated reasons, and later on, it becomes the target destination of "exportation scheme, version II".

 

[GauchoBadger]

Frankly, the only way I see it happening is if the USA conquers Haiti. It's much closer (and thus cheaper to reach) than Africa, and it's not a party of the world that whites really want to own/settle. Of course, nearly nobody outside the South is going to advocate spending energy and money to conquer Haiti just to help the South dump all African-Americans over there. You'd have to devise a scenario where Haiti is conquered beforehand, for unrelated reasons, and later on, it becomes the target destination of "exportation scheme, version II".

Would Cuba also be suitable as a "dump for blacks" location, if the US can somehow conquer it before the Civil War?